What I would like to first post about is how easy it would be to perceive Hobbes's idea of men as evil or selfish in nature. The distinction is a fine line; the fact that humans themselves are self-involved and villainous beings, or that they are faced with a certain plight that can be so contradictory that they can be forced to turn to war. Hobbes points out that there are three reasons why humans face conflict: competition, meekness, and glory. Men are set so equal in the fact that, even those two who are most unmatched in strength or intelligence could each be destroyed by the other. This competition takes its place in the fact that men all have similar wants and goals, but those that cannot be had but by one. Inevitably, man has shown time and time again that he will take any advantage that he can to get ahead and to get what he wants. Sometimes man will take from others in order for this to happen. Hobbes points out that man's desires are not sinful, thus, not evil. An act is not sinful unless stated as such by some law. As there are no laws like this in pure nature, those acts are not unjust.
Hobbes also talks about natural laws and contracts. He defines the difference between liberty and law; liberty is your right to do something, while a law is your obligation to do something. He talks at great length about the laws of nature as well as their transference or if one were to renounce them.
In the last chapter, he discusses people as 'actors', or those who represent the thoughts of others rather than their own. In my view, most of the ideas that we hold are not our own. Either we were brought up under certain conditions and ideals that we enveloped and claimed as our own, or something/someone presented something to us that changed the ideals that we were brought up to believe. I do think that there is such thing as original thought, but for the most part, who we are as individuals is heavily based on our upbringing and the situations that we encounter along the way.
Great analysis!
ReplyDelete